Where do you stand?

Does the internet inherently promote openness and democracy?

It is a seemingly timeless debate: does the internet help to spread openness and democracy, or does it strengthen the hand of authoritarian regimes? On the one hand, the web allows quick mobilisation of dispersed masses. On the other, it provides the authorities with a simple way to monitor (and clamp down on) citizens' public and private activity. Both sides of the argument offer seemingly compelling examples to support their respective theses. Optimists will invoke, for example, the street protests organised by mobile text messages successfully oust Philippine President Joseph Estrada in 2001. Glummer critics will point to the use of social networks by governments in Iran, Moldova and elsewhere to identify dissidents and crack down on anti-government activity. So, does the internet inherently promote openness and democracy? Cast your vote and join the discussion.

My sense is that the Internet inherently promotes partisanship. It hardens people's already-formed political position and narrowing people's minds. So, politically speaking, this is a very BIG negative generated by the Internet. The Internet does NOT promote civilized, reasonable, and rational debates on political issues that are at the core of democracy. Instead, the Internet promotes LYNCH MOB behaviours. Nevertheless, the Internet does open things up because it provides people with a convenient tool to do both good and bad things at the same time.

So, yes, the Internet promotes openness which is good, but it also promotes lynch mob behaviours which is not good for democracy. My personal view is that, up to this point, the negative effects of lynch mob behaviours on the Internet have outweighed the positve effects of openness. So, on the whole, it's bad.

The essense of democracy is not merely freedom, but participation, the active interest of the populace in the affairs of state.

Ergo, the internet only promotes democracy if that interest is there to begin with, mere congregation of people is not democracy. As such when that clause is true, the seeds of democracy must already be in place, and internet be but a tool, and not a source.

The internet is a tool that gives unrivaled access to information which does promote openness and democracy in the long run I believe.
That same tool can be used to fight openness and democracy, an approach which might be successful in the short run.

One need not use the internet in a repressive regime. So it may not matter that the network is monitored by the state. Three letter agencies such as the CIA do not use the internet either.

Dissidents can use a monitored network to their advantage, sending out coded information, disinformation designed to throw the state off track, false information designed to exhaust state resources, ploys to investigate state responses, or hacks designed to disrupt state machinery - while using traditional cloak and dagger methods. Information also travels informally, thru word of mouth, impossible to get at with technology. This is a huge, huge channel.

So the question is this - who can use a technical and traditional medium, in combination, most effectively? A state controlled system is inherently uncreative with its top down authority and cant use word of mouth if citizens believe that the state lies. As for internet blocking, the more an idea is kept secret, the more interest it gathers, and the faster it travels by word of mouth when revealed.

The overall advantage goes to dissident groups.

Ultimately the winning side must win hearts and minds. Soviet citizens were lost in the 1980's, and the system collapsed very quickly beyond a critical point. The internet, when used with precision, will just enhance this. And its completely open outside the repressive state.

China must be having fits! Their only real choice is to drop repressive use of information.

Being a Chinese Citizen I do feel obliged to say yes, since the power will made much authoritative and absolute without it. Yet I cannot but feel that people from the liberal world might be overly optimistic about where the Internet is taking us.

With power that great, information can be easily manipulated by the "speical internet propoganda unit" and "50 cents" (a name given to those who receive 50 cents for one propaganda post). In the worst case, the party can still blur the image of truth so that we are left with endless skepticism and indiffernce for what is real.

What might be more alarming is the fact that, dispite being discontent with the government, a typical netizen is more of a irrational nationalist than an independent intellectutal or an enlightened citizen. Patriotic passion and imperialistic thought can be effortlessly stirred up by demogogies, especially when Internet rabble want to release their anger and hatred.

Yes it does without any doubt for many reasons, including access to information which otherwise would have been difficult to obtain. If one is to consider that it is always the dictatorial regimes that try to block access to the internet, the reason being that it is the power of information that can stir a political turmoil, then the role that internet could play to promote democracy is indeniable. Who would have known what happened in Iran after the elections on such massive scale without the internet. It may be more difficult to rig the next election in that country.

Despite the use of social networks by some governments to crack down on anti-government activity, the internet gives the 'dissidents' a platform in which they can express their messages/views to a wide audience. Without the internet, it is more likely than not that their messages/views would reach a much small audience.

At most, it provides an opportunity for increased openness. But whether it actually gets used that way, and whether people will succeed in filtering out reality from the vast quantities of delusional assertions on offer, is another story.

In short, the Internet is a tool. And like any tool, the uses to which it is put depend on the desires of the people using (or mis-using) it. Doesn't matter if the tool is the Internet, or a telephone, or a hammer -- the tool does not control what it is used for.

I feel that, no matter what some misguided government bodies may make of the information that goes out on the internet,the ultimate intention of the net itself will continue and grow. While the effects for some may be negative in the short run but in the long run, more and more peoples will be united by freely flowing information. As long as we remain responsive to the information that is diseminated, it will remain free.